What This Document Is
These are reading notes pertaining to Chapter Thirteen of COM 2106, Argumentation & Advocacy at Appalachian State University. The notes explore the role of science – not as a body of facts, but as a system of argumentation and evidence. It examines how scientific standards influence public perceptions of credibility and how scientific arguments are constructed and evaluated. The document also introduces critiques of traditional scientific narratives from postmodern and feminist perspectives.
Why This Document Matters
Students enrolled in Argumentation & Advocacy will find these notes valuable for understanding how argumentation operates within a highly respected field like science. Anyone interested in the philosophy of science, or the relationship between science and public policy, will also benefit. These notes are particularly useful when analyzing arguments presented *as* scientific, or when evaluating the credibility of scientific claims in public discourse. They provide context for understanding the standards expected in persuasive communication, extending beyond everyday arguments to a field with specific evidentiary requirements.
Common Limitations or Challenges
This document provides an overview of key concepts and debates surrounding science and argumentation. It does *not* offer a comprehensive history of science, nor does it delve into the specifics of scientific methodology. It also doesn’t provide a detailed analysis of specific scientific controversies, but rather frames the broader context for understanding them. It’s a foundation for further study, not a substitute for the full chapter reading.
What This Document Provides
The full document includes:
* An exploration of the definition of science as a “story our society tells itself.”
* A discussion of the quantitative nature of much scientific endeavor and its reliance on mathematics.
* An overview of critiques of science from postmodern and feminist scholars.
* Differentiation between science, research, and the political role of scientists.
* Identification of fields commonly associated with quantitative science.
* Consideration of how scientists argue within their own disciplines, as opposed to in the public sphere.
This preview offers a high-level summary of these topics; the full document provides a more detailed and nuanced examination.
